Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 ... 85 86 [87] 88 89 ... 98  Next >
1721
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 08:09:54 PM »
As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

Quote from: Rama
No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?

The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning

    "Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"

You deliberately truncated the quotation above.  Here it is in full with the part you left out in bold:

    "Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs,
and have masses between about 13 and 80 times the mass of Jupiter."[/list]

This part is crucial since we have already established that not all brown dwarfs are above 13 MJ, particularly the one that is being discussed in this thread.  So, once again, your assertion that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 burns deuterium and so must have a core temperature in the millions of degrees Celsius is patently false.

The 13 Jupiter Mass minimum is more a rule of thumb based on observations rather than anything of mathematical significance.

If this star is not being powered by Deuterium, then what is it being powered by? Something mysterious?

1722
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 07:40:42 PM »
This is really easy. You argued that the D must have been made by the BD. I challenged that. (It's an unanswered question.) You presented your own reasonable arguments backed up with even a quote that agreed you might be wrong. I thanked you for your concession Any questions?

In absence of consensus, I don't see how my opinion on the matter is wrong.

How does the origin of Deuterium help your argument that a planet-sized ball of burning gas can vary in temperature by over a million degrees?
When you state that X is true when X is not know to be true or false, then you've erred. When did you prove that that BD's temperature varies by over a million degrees? Are you assuming that D burning continues in all BDs forever? Are you applying typical cases to a specific one without justification?

As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

Quote from: Rama
No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?

The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning

    "Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"

Quote from: Rama
Perhaps ithe theory does not exist. Perhaps it does and you are not aware of it. Either way, that has no bearing on the existence of the BD being described and it's sub-zero C temperature. Would a lack of germ theory make the existence of germs impossible?  Hardly.

I don't see how your argument that Astronomy is wrong supports your position.

Quote from: Gary
No, I mentioned that in my first post.  Hot matter leaves the core.  It cools as it expands.  After it cools it falls back down toward the core where it is heated again and process continues.  It's like a big circle.  That's what convection is.  Convection doesn't automatically lead to instant thermal equilibrium. 

Heat transfer takes time.  Stars are huge.  The end.

Not instant, but the systems are attempting to equalize at all levels.

The primary cooling comes from radiation loss, not "cooling as it expands". If there were no radiation loss, there would be no convection. This is a ball of gas. Heat rises to the top. Gas cooled by radiation loss at the surface falls to the core via convection, just as the cold air in a heated room falls to the floor, where it is recycled into the heater and brought up anew.

The argument that in an environment like that, a difference of a million degrees can be maintained in an equalizing, convective body, is simply absurd. Heat is constantly being moved to the top. It's nothing like earth.

1723
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: May 07, 2014, 07:20:24 PM »
The Coriolis Effect is caused by the stars, which are moving at a rate of one rotation per 24 hours.
So you now want to accept the Foucault Pendulum? Okay then.

Now, tell us why Einstein rejected your theory, Tell us how your theory would apply to more than just the North Pole. Heck, why don't you start by writing down your theory and its supporting experiments? Are you now saying that the Earth and the stars have interactive gravity? Please think through your theories before just stating them. Thanks.

I support the Bi-Polar model, which has two rotating celestial systems over two poles. An identical phenomena is occurring over the South Pole.

The stars have pulled the pendulum via gravitation. I believe in gravitation, not "gravity". Gravitation is a descriptive action, a sensation of attraction, but does not indicate the mechanism involved. Two magnets are said to "gravitate" towards each other. Two lovers are said to "gravitate" to one another. Sam the mail man gravitates to the Chinese restaurant every Friday night. Gravity, on the other hand is a hypothetical mechanism involving invisible puller particles/bending space time, and is yet to be demonstrated.

Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."

Hence, with our knowledge that the earth does not rotate, from our readings of ENAG and other historical Flat Earth Literature, the conclusion is demanded that the stars are pulling the pendulum.

1724
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 05:54:11 AM »
This is really easy. You argued that the D must have been made by the BD. I challenged that. (It's an unanswered question.) You presented your own reasonable arguments backed up with even a quote that agreed you might be wrong. I thanked you for your concession Any questions?

In absence of consensus, I don't see how my opinion on the matter is wrong.

How does the origin of Deuterium help your argument that a planet-sized ball of burning gas can vary in temperature by over a million degrees?

1725
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: May 07, 2014, 05:48:32 AM »
The Coriolis Effect is caused by the stars, which are moving at a rate of one rotation per 24 hours.

1726
Flat Earth General / Re: EnaG Critique
« on: May 07, 2014, 05:29:25 AM »
It is pretty well known that the usage of the word "force" was used differently in prior eras.

Thermal-Fluid Sciences: An Integrated Approach, Volume 1:

    "Parenthetical material has been added; in the mid 1800s, the word force commonly meant energy [4, 5]"

Per falling in an arc, Rowbotham describes that the ball moved diagonally from point A to point B, which it does even when falling in an arc. Moving diagonally is an accurate description. A ball can fall in an arc diagonally. The subject of the ball's motion is not in scope of the text, or pertinent.

Yawn.

1727
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 05:14:44 AM »
Quote
Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.

I don't see what is so special about Deuterium that it must be made by the Big Bang and nothing else. Deutron can be made with Van De Gaff generators. It is accepted that numerous process can create Deuterium. Modern Astronomy rests on the assumption that there have been multiple generations of stars since the Big Bang. The oldest population of stars, Population III, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago.

But if any did still exist they would be easily identifiable, and are oft searched for.

So no, the Deuterium would not have come directly from the "big bang". The Deuterium would have to have come from another star, or created anew.
Great! You concede that point. Thanks!

This point is being debated by astronomers. There is no consensus on where Deuterium in Brown Dwarfs comes from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf

    "Another debate is whether brown dwarfs should have experienced fusion at some point in their history."

Please share with us how you know that Brown Stars have not made their own Deuterium.

Please also let us know how the origin of Deuterium helps your argument that a cloud of burning gas the size of Jupiter can be a million degrees on the inside and colder than ice on the outside.

1728
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 03:51:26 AM »
The center of the earth is very hot. The surface of the earth varies in temperature allowing liquid water to form (it's not so hot).

Why can't a star have the same property?

Nothing like the earth. Stars are clouds of gas, and the outer layers are recycled into the core via convection.

I'm not super up-to-date on my gas laws, but wouldn't the temperature of the gas necessarily decrease as it gets further from the core?  The gas is spreading out over a larger volume, so that means the pressure would decrease, yes?  Which means a decrease in temperature?  And there's definitely less gravitational force acting on the gas, so less energy = lower temperature?

Am I getting those relationships right?

You forgot the part about the outer layers being recycled into the core.

1729
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 07, 2014, 03:48:19 AM »
Per the article in the OP, this is a Brown Dwarf star.

According to Wikipedia Brown Dwarfs are fueled by Deuterium, the beginning stage of the full Stellar Nucleosynthesis process.

    "Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"

We also learn from that same article that Deuterium burns at a minimum of 10^6K

    "Deuterium is the most easily fused nucleus available to accreting protostars, and burning in the center of protostars can proceed when temperatures exceed 10^6 K."

10^6 K = 999727 Celsius

Uh oh...

Just to back up for a second. The Wikipedia article on Brown Dwarfs says that they must be above 13 MJ to fuse deuterium (aka deuterium burning). This brown dwarf is below that threshold:

WISE J085510.83-071442.5 is estimated to be 3 to 10 times the mass of Jupiter. With such a low mass, it could be a gas giant similar to Jupiter that was ejected from its star system. But scientists estimate it is probably a brown dwarf rather than a planet since brown dwarfs are known to be fairly common. If so, it is one of the least massive brown dwarfs known.

I noticed that as well. If this star is under 13 Jupiter Masses, and the calculations demand a 13 Jupiter Mass minimum, it is just further evidence to show that the calculations in astronomy are unreliable. It's another nail in the coffin. I'm not aware of any theories exist speculating of self-luminous gas giant planets like Jupiter sitting in interstellar space.

Quote
Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.

I don't see what is so special about Deuterium that it must be made by the Big Bang and nothing else. Deutron can be made with Van De Gaff generators. It is accepted that numerous process can create Deuterium. Modern Astronomy rests on the assumption that there have been multiple generations of stars since the Big Bang. The oldest population of stars, Population III, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago.

But if any did still exist they would be easily identifiable, and are oft searched for.

So no, the Deuterium would not have come directly from the "big bang". The Deuterium would have to have come from another star, or created anew.

1730
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 05, 2014, 03:33:38 PM »

The hydrogen atoms were fused from within the star, earlier in its life. It's part of the process and life-cycle of the star. The fused atoms didn't just appear from nowhere. They occurred from that star's stellar activity. In order for the second stage of Stellar Fusion to occur, the first one must occur. It occurred early in that star's life of becoming a star, but it's still part of the overall process for the life cycle of those atoms in that reaction, which is why I said that the process encompasses both steps of the proton-proton chain reaction.

Please provide a scientific source for your outlandish claim: All brown stars sustain fusing hydrogen (lightest isotope).

I don't believe I stated that.

Bodies don't cool at a significant rate in space.
Please provide evidence that objects like this brown star does not cool at a significant rate. Just your saying something is true does not make it so.

I did provide evidence. I directed you to learning materials for children.

Quote
Why won't you consider a "running-on-empty" brown star's heat production limits?

I don't see what "running on empty" has to do with anything. If the necessary temperature to maintain the Deuretium burn is not achieved, then it is no longer a Brown Dwarf. It is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

The fire under a stove of boiling water may be "running on empty," but if a certain temperature is not achieved, the water is no longer boiling.

Why do you dismiss that tremendous energies can be irradiated from near-stellar objects? Give us an example where a near-stellar object that is not irradiating away large amounts of energy.

I can't help those who can't help themselves. The example I gave of the minimal instrumentation heat from space ships keeping them from cooling down, and actually increasing its temperature, despite being surrounded by the "cold" vastness of space is an apt one. Heat transfer via radiation loss is very inefficient, especialy if there is some amount of heat being generated within the body. The rate at which heat is radiated away is given by the Stephan-Boltzmann Law.

Another source: http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/misconceptions.html

    "One of the biggest problems in designing spacecraft (even theoretical interstellar ones) is not how to keep them warm, but on the contrary, how to keep them cool. Motors, electronics and such all create heat, and there's nowhere this heat can dissipate to. Vacuum is a good temperature insulator and thus it's very hard to get rid of all that heat. Just putting a big thermal sink on the outer hull of the spacecraft would not be enough because it will radiate heat away too slowly.

    One thing which might add to all this confusion is the so-called cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the phenomenon that the entire Universe is basically a black-body radiator of approximately 3 kelvin. Many people get confused by this and believe this means that anything put into deep space will quickly freeze to 3 kelvin.

    The background radiation has nothing to do with how fast something will freeze in space. In fact, quite ironically, the effect is the opposite: Background radiation adds to the temperature of the object (in other words, it's another source of heat), it doesn't freeze it. (Of course if it's the only source of heat, it will, naturally, not be enough to keep the object warm. It just means basically that the object has a 3 kelvin heat source around it.)

    Still not convinced? Well, consider this:

    The Spitzer Space Telescope is an infrared observatory that launched in 2003. Since it detects infrared light, its instruments need to be cooled, or else they will emit infrared radiation which would interfere with the images. To do this, liquid helium was used to cool these instruments to almost absolute zero.

    Now, if space was really, really cold, and everything put into space would freeze in seconds, why would they need to use liquid helium to cool off the instruments? Wouldn't the coldness of space be enough?

    No, because as said, vacuum is a good insulator, and a very poor way of cooling anything, especially instruments which produce heat. That's why they needed the liquid helium to cool it down."

1731
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 05, 2014, 09:12:53 AM »
Tom, that's for a closed system.  I hardly think that a brown dwarf star that is burning deuterium in its core and radiating heat into space qualifies as a closed system.  Also, you fail to consider that the brow dwarf could radiate heat out into space faster than the convection can carry the heat from the core.

I am afraid heat loss in space does not work like that. These are very old concepts. I would suggest that you and Gulliver read the story story penned by Frederik Pohl I mentioned above, or otherwise finding some of the educational video media NASA provides to school children about space. Learning about your own theory will do you a lot of good.

1732
Flat Earth General / Re: EnaG Critique
« on: May 05, 2014, 09:07:36 AM »
Quote
This page fails quickly. Momentum is not a force. There is only one force acting on the falling ball. It's caused by gravity.

Was momentum often spoken of as a force as the typical lexicon in the 1800's? Newton spoke of momentum as a force.

Quote
Furthermore, R. forgets to specify vital assumptions. For example. he assumes that the ship's velocity is constant.

Why can't he assume the ship is traveling constantly in his own thought experiment?  ???

Quote
And there's yet another level of error in this one paragraph. The observer's position (and motion) influences what path he (or she) perceives the ball takes.

Rowbotham is talking about a moving ship, and provides illustrations from an observer looking at it from the outside. The implications of what was meant is clear.

Next time please try to make your threads more interesting.

1733
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 05, 2014, 08:37:49 AM »
Actually, I just have better things to do on a Sunday than sit here talking to a wall.

Quote from: Gulliver
Your knowledge is wrong. In nature the second heaviest hydrogen isotope, deuterium, occurs naturally, from either the Big Bang or other stellar activity. So, yes, there is "pre-fused" hydrogen when the brown stars forms. Brown stars can only burn this isotope as their mass is insufficient to burn the lightest hydrogen isotope. This is my point. Brown stars have little fuel that they can burn.  See table 1 of www.lpi.usra.edu/books/MESSII/9038.pdf , less than one part in 1000 in most cases.

The hydrogen atoms were fused from within the star, earlier in its life. It's part of the process and life-cycle of the star. The fused atoms didn't just appear from nowhere. They occurred from that star's stellar activity. In order for the second stage of Stellar Fusion to occur, the first one must occur. It occurred early in that star's life of becoming a star, but it's still part of the overall process for the life cycle of those atoms in that reaction, which is why I said that the process encompasses both steps of the proton-proton chain reaction.

Quote from: Gullive
Again, wrong. You've forgotten that the internal convention will continue to heat the surface. If you understood, Newton's Law of Heating, you'd realize that the rate is dependent on the surface temperature. So, it's either cold (already radiated) or still losing the heat at a significant rate.

Bodies don't cool at a significant rate in space. Haven't you been keeping up with NASA's fiction over the years? They go on and on about how heat loss is a major problem in space. It's one of those "amazing facts" they teach grade school children with. The story goes that it is very difficult to get rid of heat generated by instruments in manned and unmanned ships. They say that the Space Shuttle has more issues getting rid of heat than it does trying to stay warm, which is why it flew around with the bay door open.

There is a short story by Frederik Polh called "The Mapmakers," that works on this general premise; a starship, unable to navigate to a planet to obtain air as a coolant, is slowly dying of increasing temperature as it can't rid itself of its own waste heat from internal processes.

1734
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 04, 2014, 05:37:00 AM »
But the burning of Deuretium[sic] is burning nuclear fuel

I don't believe I objected otherwise. Again, I hadn't even mentioned the terms "nuclear fuel" or "nuclear fusion" until a few posts ago.

Quote
and deuterium burning is not the "first two steps" of stellar fusion, but it is a step, the second one, in stellar fusion.

The deuterium burn itself is the second step, but to my knowledge the first step, the fusing of hydrogen atoms, still needs to happen the burn to occur as part of the overall process. The hydrogen atoms didn't start off pre-fused.

Quote
Let's try this convention example. In an airtight, windowed kitchen with an open oven at 100 degrees Celsius, what is the ambient temperature in the kitchen with the other side of the window being 100 degrees Celsius? 0 degrees Celsius? 0 degree Kelvin?

Now what contrast that to a brown star what is the temperature just outside its surface? Why wouldn't the brown star radiate (in the infrared, as seen by WISE) away its surface heat quickly?

Much of the heat is pushed back into the core, recycling, via the diagram. Radiation heat does escape at the surface. But in space conduction and convection propagation of heat is almost entirely nonexistent. When compared with convection or conduction, radiating away energy is not an efficient way to cool down an object. It loses energy via radiation, but the rate at which it happens decays exponentially (See: Blackbody Radiation).

Consider the action of of dunking a hot spoon in water. When you dunk it in, the spoons's temperature drops very fast, but with time it'll cool down more slowly (although it is still losing heat). In space, since there is no matter or medium in contact with the material you want to "cool down," there will be no convection or conduction of heat.

1735
Zetetic Council Board / Re: Constructing a constitution
« on: May 04, 2014, 05:11:05 AM »
I endorse Tsunami's ideas.

1736
Zetetic Council Board / Proposal to communicate via text
« on: May 04, 2014, 05:10:21 AM »
Okay, I'm back, and I can function again. I propose that we figure out some way to text each other, in order to chat to get to know each other, and in order apply peer pressure to get on things like forum participation and calling votes.

Thoughts?

1737
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 04, 2014, 04:05:12 AM »
The "burning" of deuterium must be a nuclear process. Deuterium is the nuclear fuel when deuterium is burned. So when you wrote "burning of deuterium" you wrote about nuclear fusion. It's that simple.

You may not understand that "burning of deuterium", a isotope of hydrogen, is not like the burning of charcoal. That's a chemical process, called oxidation. Molecular oxygen (typically) from the Earth's atmosphere combines with the longer carbon chains of the charcoal producing ash, heat, and carbon dioxide. Deuterium burning is the fusing of the nuclei of that isotope to form typically an isotope of helium.

I am afraid it is you who needs to be corrected.

I had never even written the words "nuclear fusion" until my last post. If you go back and look at my original posts I believe you will find that I said that Deurerium burning is not "Stellar Fusion". I used that term, Stellar Fusion. Stellar Fusion is the specific stellar nucleosynthesis process which occurs in the sun.

A Brown Dwarf which burns Deurerium is NOT operating via Stellar Fusion.

1738
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 04, 2014, 03:42:48 AM »
You've answered your own question: the core of the BD is very hot.  Hot matter travels away from the core and cools in the process.  With less energy to resist the force of gravity it sinks back toward the hot core where it's heated and the process begins again.  That's how convection works.  Dunno where you got the idea that convection causes thermal equilibrium.

Thermodynamics doesn't work that way.

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/0th_Law_of_Thermodynamics



    "If when two bodies are placed in thermal communication neither of them loses or gains heat, the two bodies are said to have equal temperature or the same temperature. The two bodies are then said to be in thermal equilibrium." -- Clerk Maxwell

1739
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 04, 2014, 03:20:55 AM »
Quote from: Gulliver
If you don't pay attention, I don't know that you'll learn anything here. Let's start with the temperature at the core. As the NASA article states, brown dwarf stars don't have a fusing core.

Quote from: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-127
Brown dwarfs start their lives like stars, as collapsing balls of gas, but they lack the mass to burn nuclear fuel and radiate starlight.

I hope this time you get this point. I don't know what else I can do to help you correct your misunderstanding that repeating the above quote. There is no "ultra hot matter" (whatever that redundant term means...).

Sigh. Brown Dwarfs have a burning core. They burn Deuterium. It is a partial, incomplete version of the Stellar Fusion process.

Quote
Next, let's deal with your confusion about convention. By definition, convention is the flow between two temperature differentials. You seem to assume that all conventions immediately lead to equalized temperatures throughout the star. There is no basis for that assumption. Clearly the surface radiates energy to space, including to the Spitzer and WISE. I encourage you to be on better guard against unwarranted assumptions.

Look at the illustration again. Matter is continuously recycling with the core. This is how it is displayed for Brown Dwarfs and Red Dwarfs. This is how astronomy says they work.

Convention lead to the conclusion of equalized temperatures. If you inject ice cold water into your veins, your blood circulations causes the coolness of the site to equalize over your entire body.

Quote
I tried the campfire example to assist you. Now let me have you imagine a lake that's frozen over. Why doesn't every lake with a frozen surface immediately become solid ice? Surely there's convention within the liquid water of the lake. Polar oceans on Earth have had frozen surfaces for eons, yet they are not, for the most part, not solid ice. So if you had reflected on your convention assumption for even a few minutes, you would have found your mistake on your own., Now I hope you can understand your error and accept that 0 degrees Celsius is, while unusual, not an improbable surface temperature of a brown dwarf. I hope that helps.

If the ice surface of a newly frozen-over lake were continuously brought to the bottom of the lake, it would no longer be ice. The entire system would reach an equilibrium.

Quote
You've added another, rather silly, claim that deuterium burning is not burning nuclear fuel. It is. And you've seen the NASA article quote. There's no nuclear fuel burnt in brown dwarfs, so there is no deuterium burning.

Where have I said anything about burning, or not burning, nuclear fuel?  ??? I haven't even written the word nuclear, or nuclear fuel, in this thread.

1740
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: May 04, 2014, 03:00:29 AM »
I don't believe I have stated that Brown Dwarfs are powered through full Stellar Fusion. I quoted sources which indicate Brown Dwarfs as being powered by Deuterium burning, which is a partial version of Stellar Fusion (the first two stages). To achieve Deuterium burning, a temperature of 999727 Celsius is required.

So I see that you persist in the idea that this star's sub zero surface exists simultaneously with a ~million degree core. I saw that you gave no objection to the interior illustrations I provided of the convective process for a Brown Dwarf.

Please explain to our ignorant community how matter colder than ice can directly recycle with ultra hot matter over and over again, without the entire system equalizing. I am genuinely interested and would pleasantly like to know.

Quote
Regardless of even those errors, you face the inverse squared law. Imagine a campfire with two seating rings, concentric about the fire. The inner circle holds four seats, so four people share the fire's heat. The outer circle holds eight seats. With twice the people, there's half the heat.

What if someone on the outer edge of the circle gets up and tosses himself into the burning bond fire over and over again. What is his temperature then?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 85 86 [87] 88 89 ... 98  Next >